Review of the list of LDCs

econ

stor

www.econstor.eu

Nutzungsbedingungen:

Die ZBW räumt Ihnen als Nutzerin/Nutzer das unentgeltliche, räumlich unbeschränkte und zeitlich auf die Dauer des Schutzrechts beschränkte einfache Recht ein, das ausgewählte Werk im Rahmen der unter

→ http://www.econstor.eu/dspace/Nutzungsbedingungen nachzulesenden vollständigen Nutzungsbedingungen zu vervielfältigen, mit denen die Nutzerin/der Nutzer sich durch die erste Nutzung einverstanden erklärt.

Terms of use:

The ZBW grants you, the user, the non-exclusive right to use the selected work free of charge, territorially unrestricted and within the time limit of the term of the property rights according to the terms specified at

→ http://www.econstor.eu/dspace/Nutzungsbedingungen By the first use of the selected work the user agrees and declares to comply with these terms of use.

zbw

Simonis, Udo E. (ed.)

Working Paper

Review of the list of LDCs

Papers // WZB, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung, Forschungsschwerpunkt Technik, Arbeit, Umwelt, Forschungsprofessur Umweltpolitik, No. FS II 02-408

Provided in cooperation with:

Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB)

Suggested citation: (2002) : Review of the list of LDCs, Papers // WZB, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung, Forschungsschwerpunkt Technik, Arbeit, Umwelt,

Research Professorship Environmental Policy Professor Udo E. Simonis

FS II 02-408

Review of the List of LDCs*

by

Udo E. Simonis (Ed.)

Resolution passed at the Fifth meeting of the UN Committee for Development Policy (CDP), 7-11 April, 2003; edited by Udo E. Simonis (CDP member).

Zitierhinweis

Das vorliegende Dokument ist die pdf-Version zu einem Discussion Paper des WZB. Obwohl es inhaltlich identisch zur Druckversion ist, können unter Umständen Verschiebungen/Abweichungen im Bereich des Layouts auftreten (z.B. bei Zeilenumbrüchen, Schriftformaten und – größen u.ä.). Diese Effekte sind softwarebedingt und entstehen bei der Erzeugung der pdf-Datei.

Sie sollten daher, um allen Missverständnissen vorzubeugen, aus diesem Dokument in der folgenden Weise zitieren:

Simonis, Udo E. (Ed.): Review of the List of LDCs.

Discussion Paper FS-II 02-408. Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum, Berlin, 1996. URL: http://bibliothek.wz-berlin.de/pdf/2002/ii02-408.pdf

I. Introduction

1. The Committee for Development Policy is required by Economic and Social Council resolution 1991/46 to conduct triennially a review to determine the countries to be added or graduated from the list of least developed countries (LDCs). Since the previous review was conducted in 2000, the Committee conducted another review in 2003.

2. The Committee bases its identification of the LDCs on the consideration of three dimensions of a country's state of development - its income level, its stock of human assets and its economic vulnerability. The Committee thus uses (a) Gross National Income (GNI) per capita as an indicator of income; (b) the Human Assets Index (HAI) as an indicator of the stock of human assets; and (c) the Economic Vulnerability Index (EVI) as an indicator of economic vulnerability. In addition, because the underlying concept of the LDC category excludes large economies, in 1991 the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) endorsed the principle that no country with a population exceeding 75 million should be considered for addition to the list.

3. For each review, the Committee determines threshold levels for each of the three indicators. These thresholds are used to identify countries to be added or graduated from the category. To be added, a country must satisfy all three criteria. To become eligible for graduation, a country must meet an adjusted set of thresholds for two of the same three indicators; to qualify for graduation, it must do so in two consecutive reviews. The Committee understands that its role is to assist in identifying which countries are eligible or qualify for graduation from LDC status, based on the application of the criteria adopted by the Committee and endorsed by ECOSOC. The decision on .whether the countries should be graduated is the responsibility of the Council and, ultimately, the General Assembly.

4. The Economic and Social Council, in its resolution 2002/36 of 26 July 2002, endorsed the recommendations of the Committee regarding three major changes to the criteria for the identification of the LDCs. First, Gross National Income (GNI) per capita should replace Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita as the indicator of income. Second, as it is a better indicator of the level of education, the gross secondary school enrolment ratio should replace the gross combined primary and secondary school enrolment ratio in the HAl (previously called Augmented Physical Quality of Life

Index - APQLI). Third, the percentage of the population displaced by natural disasters should be used as a supplement to the EVI when suitable data become available.

5. The Committee has made improvements to the new criteria for the identification of the LDCs adopted in 2000. However, it considers that there is scope for further methodological improvements in this before the next triennial review. Particular attention should be given, as in the past, to the quality and reliability of individual indicators and the way in which the criteria are applied.

II. Criteria for identification of the least developed countries in 2003

A. Gross National Income (GNP) per capita

6. The initial list of countries to which the criteria for identifying the LDCs were applied during the 2003 review comprised all countries classified by the World Bank as low-income in any one of the three most recent years.1 The Committee gave special attention to the low-income countries of Eastern Europe and in Central Asia (EITs) that became independent in the 1990s, but found that none of them should be included in the initial list for the reasons given in Box 1. As a result, 65 countries have been retained for consideration during the 2003 review, comprising the 49 current least developed countries and 16 low-income countries not currently included in the LDC list, including one new Member State of the United Nations, Timor-Leste.

7. The Committee decided that the threshold for inclusion in the present review should be a three-year (1999-2001) average GNI per capita of US$ 750.2 With regard to the threshold for graduation, the Committee increased the margin from 15 per cent to 20 per cent above the threshold for inclusion, primarily to avoid the possibility that graduating countries rejoin the category as a result of short-term fluctuations in their GNI per capita arising from exogenous shocks. It was thus agreed that, in the 2003 review, the threshold for graduation would be a three-year average GNI per capita of US$ 900. Six current LDCs would be above the graduation threshold for this criterion (see Table 1).

1 _{The World Bank's list of low-income countries changes from year to year as a result of changes in the cut-off point and}

the differences in growth among countries over time.

2 _{The World Bank cut-off points for low-income countries during these three years were US$ 755, 755 and 745,}

B. Human Assets Index (HAD

8. The Committee agreed that HAI should continue to reflect the following: (a) nutrition,

measured by the average calorie consumption per capita as a percentage of the minimum requirement; (b) health, measured by the under-five child mortality rate; and (c) education, measured by (i) the adult literacy rate and (ii) gross secondary school enrolment ratio.

9. As agreed in 1991, the HAI threshold for inclusion is the value of the border between the third and fourth quartiles of the group of 65 countries identified in Table 1. In the 2000 review, the threshold for graduation was 15 per cent above the inclusion threshold. The Committee decided, however, that the margin between thresholds for inclusion and graduation be decreased from 15 per cent to 10 per cent because this margin is sufficient to distinguish the countries which had developed significantly better human assets. According to the agreed guidelines, the threshold for inclusion in the list of least developed countries under this index is an HAI value of 55. The threshold for graduation under this index is 61.

C. Economic Vulnerability Index (EVI)

10. Economic vulnerability can take a variety of forms. The vulnerability that has to be considered in the identification of the least developed countries is structural economic vulnerability. For this purpose, the EVI should reflect the relative risk posed to a country's development by exogenous shocks, the impact of which depends not only on the size of the shocks, but also on structural characteristics that determine, the extent to which the country would be affected by such shocks. The EVI used by the Committee is, therefore, an average of five indicators: (a) merchandise export concentration, (b) instability of export earnings, (c) instability of agricultural production; (d) share of manufacturing and modern services in GDP, and (e) population size.

11. The Committee was informed that the quality of internationally comparable data on the number of people displaced by natural disasters had improved significantly. The Committee thus agreed that this information be included in a modified EVI as a supplement to data on the instability of agricultural production.

12. The Committee fully recognized that small countries are economically more vulnerable to external shocks than large ones because their economies are heavily dependent on external trade, are less diversified and suffering from diseconomies of scale. In particular, most small island LDCs face a range of structural handicaps - such as high international transportation costs, and relative isolation from main markets - that makes them more vulnerable to external shocks. For that reason, it was suggested that the remoteness of countries might also be taken into consideration in future reviews. 13 As in the case of HAI, the Committee decided that the EVI margin between thresholds for inclusion and graduation be decreased from 15 per cent to 10 per cent. According to these guidelines, the threshold for inclusion in the list of least developed countries is an HAI value of 37. The threshold for graduation under this index is 33. With the inclusion of the percentage of population displaced by natural disasters, the threshold for inclusion would be a value of 38, and for graduation 34.

III. Eligibility for inclusion and graduation

A Country to be added to the list

14. Timor-Leste is the only country eligible for addition to the list. Its EVI cannot be calculated because of lack of data, but the country has both an GNI per capita and HAI well below the thresholds for inclusion. The Committee recommends that it be included in the list of least developed countries.

B. Countries to be considered for graduation (a) Countries qualifying for graduation

15. The Committee agreed that two countries - Cape Verde and Maldives - qualify for graduation since they have met two graduation criteria in two consecutive reviews.

1. Cape Verde

16. In 1997, the Committee indicated that Cape Verde would become eligible for graduation in the following review as it met two graduation criteria (income per capita and human capital

indices) at that time. The 2000 review confirmed that Cape Verde met these two graduation criteria and qualified for graduation. However, it ranked as one of the most economically vulnerable developing countries according to the EVI. Because of its high economic vulnerability and the high dependence of the country on foreign aid and workers' remittances, the Committee recommended that the graduation of Cape Verde from the list of least developed countries be postponed for reconsideration at the 2003 review.

17. Cape Verde now has the fourth highest GNI per capita and the fourth highest HAI among the 65 countries. Both measures are well above the graduation threshold. In contrast, it is economically vulnerable, with an EVI score of 55.5, compared with a graduation threshold of 33. Nevertheless, given that the country meets two of the three graduation criteria - and that it has done so in three consecutive reviews - the Committee agreed that it qualifies for graduation from the list.

18. The Committee was informed that the Government of Cape Verde had expressed reservations about the accuracy of data on nutrition used in the calculation of its HAL In the Government's view, the calorie intake data presented by FAO - based on food balances that compute data on national food production and food imports rather than on household consumption surveys - do not reflect the nutritional reality of the country. As a result, the Government believes that adjustments should be made in the calculation of its HAI score. The Committee took note of this concern but was informed by FAO that its calorie intake figure was the most reliable statistic on an internationally comparable basis. The Committee stresses the credibility of its triennial review of the list is partly dependent on the fact that it uses data collected on an internationally comparable basis by specialized agencies of the United Nations system, such as FAO, UNESCO and WHO.

2. Maldives

19. ECOSOC resolution 2002/36 requested "the Committee to continue its work on the re-examination of its recommendation to graduate Maldives from the list of least developed countries at its fifth session and to submit its recommendations to the Council at its substantive session of 2003 in the context of the triennial review of the list of least developed countries, taking into account the information referred to above and further information to be provided by relevant development partners and multilateral organizations."

20. The Committee re-examined its recommendation - made in its 2000 review – that Maldives be graduated, and the subsequent consideration of the case of Maldives by the Committee in 2001 and 2002. The Committee recalls that, in the 1997 and 2000 reviews, the country met two graduation criteria: its income per capita and HAI (formerly APQL1) were both well above the graduation thresholds. In the present review, its GNI per capita is not only the highest amongst the 65 countries but also more than twice the graduation threshold. Its HAI score ranks as the seventh highest and is also above the graduation threshold. Its EVI (33.6) is also very close to the graduation threshold (33 or less). Given that Maldives meets two graduation criteria for a third consecutive time, the Committee concludes that the country qualifies for graduation.

21. The Committee was informed that the Government of Maldives had expressed procedural and substantive concerns to the Secretary-General about the interim vulnerability profile of Maldives that had been made available to the Committee. For its part, UNCTAD informed the Committee that the profile had been prepared with substantial cooperation from the Government. The preliminary reaction of the Government to the interim vulnerability profile did not contain any material evidence to reverse the Committee's view that the Maldives technically qualifies for graduation. The Committee recognizes that Maldives faces special difficulties and costs because it is a small, widely dispersed island economy and that it may lose important international benefits if it graduates from the list of LDCs.

(b) Other countries meeting two graduation criteria in 2003

22. Samoa has the second highest average GNI per capita and the highest HAI among the 65 countries. Although the country is considered economically vulnerable - as reflected in its EVI score (41), compared with a graduation threshold of 33 (or lower) - it is now the seventh least vulnerable LDCs on this criterion. Since it meets two graduation criteria, the Committee recommends that it be considered eligible for graduation. As a result, it might qualify for graduation should it fulfil the graduation criteria again in the 2006 review.

23. The data for two countries - Kiribati and Tuvalu - indicate that they meet two graduation criteria (GNI per capita and HAI). However, while they are technically eligible for future graduation, the Committee recommends that they should not be considered. In the case of Kiribati - whose three-year average GNI per capita (US$ 923) is just above the graduation

threshold of US$ 900 - GNI per capita has been falling constantly over the past four years, from US$ 1,130 in 1998 to only US$ 830 in 2001. In the case of Tuvalu, only GDP per capita data are available. In addition, the Committee stresses that these are the two most economically vulnerable countries in the initial list according to the EVI.

IV. Smooth transition of countries graduating from least developed country status

24. The fact that a country that has long been recognized as "least developed" qualifies for graduation is an indication of some success in its development and in its ability to achieve a degree of structural change in its economy. These successes, in turn, are likely to have been largely attributable to a mix of sound domestic policies and propitious external conditions. With regard to the latter, international support has frequently played a central role and the capacity to use world market opportunities may also have been important.

25. Despite the progress they have achieved, countries that qualify for graduation from LDC status are likely to continue to have a limited capacity to withstand exogenous shocks. A sudden withdrawal of external support is likely to constitute such a shock and to have negative effects, possibly reversing some of the development progress achieved. Countries that qualify for graduation from the LDC category should be commended for their success and not penalized for it by the imposition of such a shock.

26. The Committee recalls the importance that it has consistently attached to "smooth transition" measures for graduating countries, as elaborated in the reports of its third session and fourth session.3 It also recalls that ECOSOC, in its resolution 2002/36, reiterated the importance of smooth transition, which it had emphasized in earlier resolutions (2000/34 and 2001/43), in keeping with the

observation made in 1991 by the General Assembly on the importance of ensuring that graduation from LDC status would not disrupt the progress in their development (resolution 46/206).

27. The Committee was informed that the importance of securing smooth transition for graduating countries had begun to be taken into account by the multilateral trading system, as the question of the treatment of graduating member States is on the agenda of the "Work Programme on Small

Economies" of the World Trade Organization (WTO). The Committee suggests that, with the general trend towards freer trade and erosion of trade preferences for all developing countries, LDC benefits should be maintained when a country graduates, as the cost to trading partners would be negligible and the benefit to the graduating country will gradually dissipate as trade barriers for all developing countries fall. The Committee recommends that ECOSOC should encourage relevant development partners and multilateral organizations to accelerate progress in their treatment of graduation issues, including the provision of technical assistance through the "Integrated Framework for Trade-Related Technical Assistance" to Least Developed Countries.

28. The Committee, therefore, recommends that a Meeting of Experts on the overall question of smooth transition be organized in order to cast light on the likely treatment of graduating countries by their main bilateral and multilateral partners.

29. It was stressed that the treatment of graduating countries by their bilateral and multilateral partners - notably with regard to trade preferences - can be decided upon only in international organizations, such as the World Trade Organization (WTO). It was recalled that graduation would imply the loss of a number of significant advantages, in particular, preferential market access and extended deadlines for implementation with regard to WTO obligations. The Committee also recommends that, in each case, graduation should trigger the convening by the United Nations of a round-table meeting in which the graduating country and its development partners would identify measures to ensure a smooth transition.

30. The Committee has benefited from a document submitted by the Commonwealth Secretariat, -drawing attention to the general resistance to graduation amongst LDCs. This document stresses the particular disadvantages to be faced by graduating Small Island Developing States. (SIDS) and their need for assistance in maintaining access to traditional markets and securing access to new markets. 31. Bearing in mind that all countries meeting the graduation criteria in this review are SIDS, the question of smooth transition was recognized by the Committee as being a particular aspect of wider considerations relating to the special treatment of SIDS. The Committee calls upon the forthcoming international meeting on the sustainable development of SIDS in 2004 (see General Assembly resolution 57/262) to give consideration to the special needs of SIDS. The Committee urges ECOSOC, in considering the questions of graduation and smooth transition at its substantive session

of 2003, to underline the need for a more differentiated treatment of developing countries that face special disadvantages and vulnerabilities, such as SIDS.

V. Conclusions and recommendations

32. The Committee for Development Policy maintains its position that, in addition to the current LDCs, the initial list of countries to be considered during the triennial review should be those identified by the World Bank as low-income in any one of the three most recent years. Among these countries, the Committee found that the comparatively high stocks of human assets in the low-income countries with EITs made them ineligible to join the list of LDCs.

33. The Committee adopted a three-year average of US$ 750 per capita as the threshold for inclusion in the category under the GNI per capita criterion. It also decided to increase the margin for graduation from 15 per cent to 20 per cent above the threshold for inclusion; the graduation threshold under this criterion thus became a three-year average of US$ 900 per capita.

34. The Committee agreed that the threshold for inclusion with regard to both the HAI and EVI criteria should be chosen so that three-quarters of the most disadvantaged countries would be eligible under each of these criteria. The Committee also decided that the margin between the thresholds for inclusion and graduation should be decreased from 15 per cent to 10 per cent for these indicators. 35. Applying the agreed thresholds and taking into account other information and considerations, the Committee concludes that:

(a) Timor-Leste qualifies inclusion in the list of LDCs; (b) Cape Verde and Maldives qualify for graduation;

(c) Samoa is eligible to be considered for graduation in 2006.

36. The Committee strongly emphasizes the need for a smooth transition for countries that are graduated from the list of LDCs and calls upon the international community, including bilateral donors and trading partners, to give urgent attention to this matter. Since all countries that either qualify or are eligible for graduation under this review are Small Island Developing States (SIDS), the Committee considers it imperative that the international meeting on SIDS in 2004 make

development challenges faced by this group of countries, particularly those that succeed in qualifying for graduation from LDC status.

Box 1: The case of countries with economies in transition

Nine countries with economies in transition (EITs) have been classified as low-income countries by the World Bank in at least one of the past three years. Owing to the major political and economic changes that took place during their transition to market economies, these countries suffered deep recessions. During the 1990-2000 period, for example, GDP per capita fell by over 50 per cent in each of these. Their three-year average GNI per capita range from US$ 173 in Tajikistan to US$ 780 in Turkmenistan (see Table B.1 below).

GNI per capita is within the current threshold for inclusion in eight of the nine EITs. Similarly, seven of these countries would also be eligible for inclusion under the EVI criterion. However, as former socialist republics, they still have high HAI scores due to past social policies, and should not be recommended for inclusion in the list of least developed countries.

The Committee agreed that considering EITs for inclusion in the 2003 triennial review of the list of least developed countries would also create distortions in the establishment of thresholds for inclusion and graduation of HAL It was recalled, however, that the economic decline in these countries lasted longer than was expected. It was also noted that a few of these countries now have lower GNI per capita than many current least developed countries. If the economies of these low-income EITs do not improve in the near future, erosions of social progress may be difficult to reverse, leading to a possible lowering of HAL The Committee thus emphasized the importance of monitoring of the economies in transition with low incomes and decreasing HAI scores.

Table B.1 - Economies in Transition:

Data and the criteria used in determining eligibility for least developed countries status

Population

Per capita

2002 GNI EVI

(millions) (US $) HAI EVI (modified)

Armenia 3.8 523 79.4 30.7 34.0 Azerbaijan 8.1. 607 72.8 38.9 40.6 Georgia 5.2 647 76.2 47.6 48.2 Kyrgyzstan 5.0 287 77.6 38.2 39.9 Moldova, Republic of 4.3 397 81.1 39.6 . 39.1 Tajikistan 6.2 173 69.5 37.7 39.1 Turkmenistan 4.9 780 84.5 60.9 53.8 Ukraine 48.7 723 86.3 23.8 26.1 Uzbekistan 25.6 607 81.3 40.3 36.3

Least developed and non-least developed countries:

Data and the criteria used in determining eligibility for least developed countries status

Population Capita Per

2002 GNI EVI

(millions) (US $) HAI EVI (modified) LDC Afghanistan LDC Angola 23.3 13.9 523 447 25.6 11.6 50.1 48.5 49.0 46.8 LDC Bangladesh 143.4 363 45.3 22.9 29.5 LDC Benin 6.6 367 40.2 57.0 56.4 LDC Bhutan 2.2 600 40.4 40.6 41.0 LDC Burkina Faso 12.2 217 26.5 49.3 47.0 LDC Burundi 6.7 110 19.7 53.8 49.6 LDC Cambodia 13.8 263 44.5 49.7 48.1 Cameroon 15.5 583 43.8 31.9 31.2 LDC Cape Verde 0.4 1323 72.0 55.5 56.7

LDC Central African Republic 3.8 277 29.9 43.1 42.0

LDC Chad 8.4 203 26.1 59.2 56.6

LDC Comoros 0.7 387 38.1 59.1 58.7

Congo 3.2 610 55.2 50.3 46.8

Cote d' Ivoire 16.7 687 43.0 25.4 25.9

Dem. Peo. Rep. of Korea 22.6 440 62.9 32.8 29.5 LDC Dem. Republic of the Congo 54.3 100 34.3 40.8 42.3

LDC Djibouti 0.7 873 30.2 48.6 49.5 LDC Equartorial Guinea 0.5 743 47.2 64.4 55.8 LDC Eritrea 4.0 190 32.8 51.7 50.2 LDC Ethiopia 66.0 100 25.2 42.0 40.7 LDC Gambia 1.4 340 34.0 60.8 56.5 Ghana 20.2 337 57.9 40.9 41.9 LDC Guinea 8.4 447 30.3 42.1 40.0 LDC Guinea-Bissau 1.3 170 31.2 64.6 60.7 LDC Haiti 8.4 493 35.3 41.7 43.5 India 1041.1 450 55.7 13.5 19.6 Indonesia 217.5 610 73.6 18.1 21,9 Kenya 31.9 350 49.3 28.4 29.0 LDC Kiribati 0.1 923 67.5 64.8 60.4

LDC Lao People's Dem. Rep. 5.5 . 297 46.4 43.9 43.4

LDC Lesotho 2.1 573 45.4 44.2 44.5

Least developed and non-least developed countries:

Data and the criteria used in determining eligibility for least developed countries status

Per Population

2002 Capita GNI EVI

(millions) (US $) HAI EVI (modified) LDC Madagaskar LDC Malawi 16.9 11.0 253 177 37.9 39.0 21.6 49.0 27.0 49.4 LDC Maldives 0.3 1983 63.4 33.6 37.5 LDC Mali 12.0 230 19.9 47.5 45.4 LDC Mauritania 2.8 377 38.2 38.9 37.7 Mongolia 2.6 393 63.3 50.0 48.9 LDC Mozambique 19.0 220 20.0 35.6 39.2 LDC Myanmar 49.0 282 60.0 45.4 45.6 LDC Nepal 24.2 240 47.1 29.5 31.0 Nicaragua 5.3 395 60.8 39.4 42.5 LDC Niger 11.6 180 14.2 54.1 53.1 Nigeria 120.0 267 52.3 52.8 51.1 Pakistan 148.7 437 45.5 20.2 26.1

Papua New Guinea 5.0 673 46.2 36.1 38.6

LDC Rwanda 8.1 230 34.1 63.3 59.6

LDC Samoa 0.2 1447 88.8 40.9 50.8

LDC Sao Tome and Principe 0.1 280 55.8 41.8 37.0 .

LDC Senegal 9.9. 490 38.1 38.4 38.8 LDC Sierra Leone 4.8 130 21.7 45.7 43.3 LDC Solomon Islands 0.5 657 47.3 46.7 49.1 LDC Somalia 9.6 177 8.5 55.4 53.1 LDC Sudan 32.6 333 46.4 45.2 46.5 LDC Tanzania 36.8 263 41.1 28.3 30.2

Timor Leste 0.8 478 36.4 N.A. N.A.

LDC Togo 4.8 293 48.6 41.5 42.8 LDC Tuvalu 0.01 1383 63.7 70.3 67.3 LDC Uganda 24.8 297 39.8 43.2 41.6 LDC Vanuatu 0.2 1083 57.4 44.5 46.4 Viet Nam 80.2 390 72.7 37.1 39.4 LDC Yemen 19.9 423 46.8 49.1 49.0 LDC Zambia 10.8 3.17 43.4 49.3 47.6 Zimbabwe. 13.1 463 56.5 33.7 30.3 Notes: